Hebei Foreign Trade and Advertising Corp. v. United States
2011 WL 5036910
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- Commerce initiated the first administrative review of activated carbon from PRC in June 2008.
- Hebei Foreign’s separate rate status was revoked in the Final Results due to questionable certification by a non-employee.
- The court remanded to explain regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.303(g) and determine if Mr. Wang could certify on Hebei Foreign’s behalf.
- On remand, Commerce clarified that certification must be by a current employee and distinguished employees from independent contractors or agents.
- Hebei Foreign submitted new certifications signed by Hebei Foreign officials and payroll data showing employment of these certifiers.
- Commerce granted a separate rate to Hebei Foreign at 16.35% based on averaging other PRC suppliers’ rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commerce properly interpreted § 351.303(g) for certification | Calgon argues Liu Guozhang fails the employee test | Hebei/Commerce find he satisfies 'employed by' under remand. | Yes; remand interpretation upheld and Hebei Foreign qualifies. |
| Whether Liu Furong also meets the certification requirements | Calgon contends Furong’s status is insufficient | Commerce relied on Furong’s employment and supervisory role | Yes; Furong satisfies the requirements and supports separate rate. |
| Whether Wang’s employment status taints Hebei Foreign’s entire submission | Calgon argues Wang’s unclear status taints other data | Record shows independent data valid; can exclude defective parts if needed | No; one unclear item does not invalidate other information. |
| Whether Hebei Foreign’s separate rate is supported by substantial evidence | Calgon disputes the 16.35% rate derivation | Remand results provide substantial evidence for the separate rate | Yes; remand results sustained with 16.35% separate rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shandong Huarong Gen. Grp. Corp. v. United States, 27 CIT 1568 (2003) (invalid verification does not void all submissions)
- China Kingdom Imp. & Ex. Co. v. United States, 31 CIT 1329 (2007) (rejects broad invalidation for isolated misstatements)
- Gerber Food (Yunnan) Co. v. United States, 31 CIT 921 (2007) (adverse facts available for non-cooperation must be specific)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (CIT 2011) (context for remand and record development in AD cases)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (zeroing methodology developments affecting AD reviews)